U.S. launches "One Health" framework amid concerns over global health governance and surveillance

By willowt // 2025-01-20

Mastodon

Parler

Gab

Copy

The CDC, USDA and DOI introduced a "One Health" framework to address zoonotic diseases and pandemic preparedness.
Critics argue the plan could expand government surveillance, centralize health decision-making and undermine democratic governance.
The NOHF-Zoonoses outlines goals such as pathogen surveillance, pandemic preparedness and integrating environmental factors into public health strategies.
The framework is seen as part of a broader trend toward global health governance, raising concerns about national sovereignty and individual autonomy.
The plan prioritizes surveillance and vaccine development, but critics warn it could prioritize biosecurity over holistic health solutions.

The U.S. government has unveiled its first-ever national framework for a “One Health” approach, a collaborative strategy aimed at addressing zoonotic diseases — those transmitted between animals and humans — and bolstering public health preparedness. The framework, developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of the Interior (DOI), seeks to tackle emerging health threats like COVID-19, mpox, bird flu and Ebola. The framework, titled the National One Health Framework to Address Zoonotic Diseases and Advance Public Health Preparedness in the United States (NOHF-Zoonoses), outlines seven goals, including pathogen surveillance, pandemic preparedness, vaccine development and biolab safety. It also emphasizes tracking environmental and social determinants of health, such as climate change and land use, and integrating One Health principles into educational curriculums. While proponents argue the plan is a necessary step to address interconnected health threats, critics like Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMedInfo, say it overlooks foundational health strategies. “The lack of focus on regenerative agriculture, toxin reduction and lifestyle medicine demonstrates a troubling detachment from what truly promotes health at the individual and societal levels,” Ji told The Defender.

A globalist agenda or public health necessity?

The One Health framework has sparked debate over its implications for national sovereignty and individual autonomy. Critics argue it aligns with globalist efforts, such as the World Health Organization’s (WHO) proposed Pandemic Treaty, which seeks to centralize health decision-making under international bodies. Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, told The Defender that the framework could bypass traditional public health policymaking processes. “The plan is aimed at further embedding the extremely fuzzy concept of One Health into all government agencies, creating new interagency structures and mechanisms for decision-making outside the usual chain of command structures,” Nass said. Ji echoed these concerns, warning that the framework risks amplifying crisis-driven governance. “By focusing on zoonotic diseases, the framework risks entrenching centralized global systems that bypass democratic oversight,” he said. The framework’s origins trace back to the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which mandated federal agencies to address zoonotic diseases and pandemic preparedness. Critics argue this legislative push, combined with global initiatives like the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty, could erode national sovereignty.

Surveillance and vaccine development take center stage

A key component of the One Health framework is its emphasis on surveillance and vaccine development. The plan calls for tracking zoonotic diseases and their environmental drivers, as well as accelerating the development of diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics. However, some experts warn that this crisis-oriented approach could prioritize biosecurity over holistic health solutions. “The framework’s focus on pathogen surveillance and vaccine development reflects a reactive, rather than proactive, approach to health,” Ji said. The framework also connects One Health to environmental justice and climate change, proposing to integrate these issues into public health strategies. Yet, critics argue this broad scope could expand government oversight into nearly every aspect of life.

Fast-tracked drug approvals and global implications

The U.S. framework coincides with global efforts to streamline drug approvals and pandemic responses. In the U.K., the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is considering a plan to fast-track drugs approved by “trusted” regulators in other countries, raising concerns about safety and regulatory oversight. Dr. Nass warned that such initiatives could lead to a “race to the bottom” in drug safety standards. “By saying that any friendly nation’s drug regulator decision can stand in your country, that obviously will turn into a race to the bottom,” she said. Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center, highlighted the risks of expedited approvals. “Over the four decades that I have been an informed consent advocate in the U.S., I have watched Congress systematically lower the bar for vaccine safety and efficacy,” she told The Defender. These developments are part of a broader trend toward global health governance. The Biden administration’s National Biodefense Strategy, which aims to develop vaccines within 130 days during health emergencies, has also drawn criticism. Brian Hooker, Ph.D., senior director of science and research for Children’s Health Defense, warned that such timelines could compromise safety. “The whole prospect of rolling out a vaccine in 130 days is completely unrealistic and too many corners will be cut,” he said.

A crossroads for public health

The One Health framework represents a significant shift in how the U.S. approaches public health, emphasizing collaboration across sectors and disciplines. However, its success will depend on balancing crisis preparedness with democratic oversight and individual autonomy. As Ji noted, the One Health concept could benefit humanity if it recognizes health as an emergent property of balanced ecosystems. “But it must overcome the globalist push to centralize health decision-making under unelected bodies,” he said. With global health governance initiatives gaining momentum, the debate over the One Health framework underscores the tension between preparedness and freedom — a tension that will shape the future of public health in the U.S. and beyond. Sources include: ChildrensHealthDefense.org CDC.gov DoorToFreedom.org